Q: Do you see some foul play, some pressure-building or horse trading in getting more votes for Microsoft?
Louis : A famous politician once said, “There are two things in politics: Money, and I forgot the second one. A lot was at (and continues to be) at stake here: entire markets. That’s why this vote, this issue, is so controversial. The ODF is the standard bearer of legitimate and open processes, and I should hope that its openness proves a paradigm and touchstone for all.
Q: Earlier, the strongest point OOo had was that it’s an ISO-approved standard to get adopted by government bodies, something that MS was missing. Now that MS’s format is also an ISO standard, will OOo not lose its government clients? The only factor that seems to remain now is cost. How much of a role do you think price will play?
Louis : I disagree with part of your premise and question. The ISO approved ODF. This meant that the format was maintained by an international consortium and that no one company owned it or directed its development. That remains the case even now. Merely including OOXML—which, by the way, is not the same as Microsoft’s OOXML format (there are crucial differences, I believe, in Microsoft’s Office implementation)—in the roster of available ISO-approved formats, does not invalidate the prior approval of ODF, nor does it necessarily mean that OOXML is on the same level as ODF in terms of usability, openness and accessibility. A government, for instance, will choose ODF and not OOXML not because the ISO has decreed it, but because all things being equal, ODF is much easier to work with and offers a lot more in potential than OOXML, which, for all MS’ claims, is nevertheless implemented by only one application: MS Office. ODF, in contrast has been implemented by numerous applications.
Cost, is always an issue—not for the government, but for its people. If a government wants its e-docs to be made freely available, why would it choose MS Office? It’s not as if the ISO approval of OOXML has magically made MS Office open source or free; or that the government can work with it in the same fashion as it can with OOo and ODF; or that the application can be thought of as the seed of development and an ecosystem as OOo can be. Nothing, in short, has changed.
Q: What strategy do you have to promote OOo further with another format available as an ISO standard?
Louis : Our strategy has not changed. ODF is our default format for 3.0 (due out this year) and we also will be able to read OOXML files with that version, though we will not want to save as that format; but rather as the older and more established binary formats (.doc, .ppt, etc.). MS Office 2007 can reputedly open such file formats with great fidelity, or at any rate, they (MS) claim it is backward compatible.
Q: How much market share did OOo gain during the period ODF was the only ISO standard?
Louis : We gained a great deal. But since the announcement, downloads are up, not down. Why? The format is one element, the application, which allows input to be expressed in the format, is another, and it is why people download OOo. Or do you think they do it because of the format? I assure you, that is not why. People want to do things and do not particularly care about what is hidden, as long as what is hidden does not surface one day to bite them, as so much proprietary and encumbered software can.
Q: How has the OOXML’s approval affected ODF’s penetration?
Louis : Zero.
Q: To date Microsoft has also been offering some support to ODF. However, now with its own format as an ISO standard, it is not obliged to provide support. Do you think this may raise issues regarding interoperability?
Louis : No. If anything, Microsoft will be more vigorous in making that claim. But we too are interested in ensuring that all users have access to the wealth of nations, and so are committed to interoperability with all
office suites.
Q: What strategy do you have to capture the market within the control of Microsoft?
Louis : Most users of Windows have become accustomed to XP and have learned to dread, or so I read, Vista, which seems to have failed miserably as only those things that cost so much, can. But they have to upgrade, as MS is kind of forcing them to. And so they have a choice. They can reconsider Linux, Apple, or indeed, stick with XP and just see if OOo can meet their needs. Politically, choosing proprietary software is risky now that attention has been paid to just what that means, i.e, citizens are required to pay for something for which there is a free alternative that is in many ways better. (An open standard does not mean
open source.)
So what we are seeing, and what we expect to see a lot more of—look at Brazil, for instance—is governments working with the project (OOo) and massively migrating to OOo. Cost is one issue, freedom another; and freedom here means the freedom to do things otherwise impossible with proprietary software, like enhance localisations, add extensions, integrations, etc.
Our strategy, in short, is to work with public and private enterprises to address their needs and to build a robust and sustainable ecosystem so that all users are supported in their native language, trained, and ready to go; and so that new things are made out of this. Or do you really want the future to be a retread of the past?
Q: What do you see for the OOo and ODF community in the years to come?
Louis : Glory. I mean it. What is the future, I could ask, of Firefox? Will IE7 kill it? No. People appreciate freedom and what it brings, for it brings innovation and the possibility of it. And it brings, implicitly, community—by which I mean a coming together of interests that are not only generated by and dependent upon marketing agendas.
-- Swapnil Bhartiya
Courtesy: LINUX For You |
I run a small company and Linux and OpenOffice are like awesome help to me. I mean, I have 20 PCs for my colleagues and calculate the cost of installing XP on them -- OS, then Office suite, then anti-virus and on and on....with Microsoft, its vicious cycle of money well. But with Linux I can insvest more on imp things. Thanks Louis for giving us OOo
